Nasir Mahmood vs The State Of U.P. Thru.The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 9215 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 18
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 14166 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Nasir Mahmood
 
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thru.The Prin.Secy.Industries Deptt. & Ors
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Laxmi Kant Pathak
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
with
 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 715 of 2013
 
Petitioner :- Sri Krishna Rawat And Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Its Prin.Secy.Industrial Development & Ors
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- L.K. Pathak,Ram Narayan Yadava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

1. Heard Sri Laxmi Kant Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

2. Since both the petitions have been filed against the impugned orders dated 09.07.2012 and 16.07.2012 and involve common question of law and facts, they are being decided by a common order. However, the facts of Writ Petition No.14166 (SS) of 2019 are taken into consideration for deciding the writ petitions.

3. The short question as arises before this Court is that once a petition has been disposed of by granting benefit of another judgment and the earlier judgment is complied with by giving benefit to those set of petitioners w.e.f a particular date then whether a discrimination can be done by the respondents by granting the partial benefit to the second set of petitioners on the ground that the facts of the second case are different.

4. The present petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 09.07.2012 passed by the respondent no. 2 and the order dated 16.07.2012 passed by the respondent no. 3, copies of which are annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition whereby the benefit of designation of the post of Machine Assistant (Off Set) and pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- has been granted to the petitioner w.e.f 04.08.2011 i.e the date of judgment of the High Court. A further prayer is for consideration of the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment and order dated 21.03.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 2790 (SS) of 1998 Inre; Kapoor Chand and Ors Vs. State of U.P and ors, a copy of which is annexure 7 to the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been appointed on the post of Machine Assistant (Letter Press) in the year 1987. A decision was taken for establishment of new set up of printing technology under the modernization scheme and certain posts were created. A discriminatory pay scale was sought to be introduced by the respondents. A set of employees being aggrieved against the discrimination in the pay scale filed Writ Petition No. 2790 (SS) of 1998 Inre; Kapoor Chand and Ors Vs. State of U.P and ors praying for being given the revised pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- w.e.f 21.07.1996 and other reliefs. The writ Court vide judgment and order dated 21.03.2005, a copy of which is annexure 7 to the writ petition, allowed the petition and directed that the petitioners shall be entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/-. The special appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed and even the Special Leave to Petition filed by the State of U.P vide Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18167 of 2008 was dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2008, copies of which are part of annexure 7 to the writ petition.

6. In pursuance to the directions issued by the writ Court, the respondents have proceeded to pass an order dated 27.01.2012 whereby w.e.f 31.07.1996 to 31.08.2008 the petitioners of the said case were given the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- and thereafter the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- with attendant benefits. Copy of the said order is annexure 8 to the writ petition.

7. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner herein along with others filed Writ Petition No. 4956 (SS) of 2004 Inre; Sri Krishna Singh Rawat and Ors Vs. State of U.P and Ors in which the petitioner was petitioner no. 11 and the writ Court vide judgment and order dated 04.08.2011, a copy of which is annexure 9 to the writ petition extended the benefit of the judgment and order dated 21.03.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 2790 (SS) of 1998 to the present petitioner also. Subsequent thereto, the respondents filed Special Appeal (Defective) No. 37 of 2012 Inre; State of U.P and ors Vs. Sri Krishna Rawat And ors before this Court which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 25.01.2012, a copy of which is annexure 10 to the writ petition, by holding that no cogent ground has been made out in the special appeal. Thus, the judgment and order dated 04.08.2011 attained finality.

8. Subsequent thereto, the respondents have proceeded to pass the impugned orders dated 09.07.2012 and 16.07.2012, copies of which are annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition whereby the petitioners have been given the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- with the designation of Machine Assistant (Off Set) w.e.f the date of judgment passed by the writ Court i.e w.e.f 04.08.2011.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the petitioner has been given the benefit of the earlier judgment of this Court passed in the case of Kapoor Chand and Ors (supra) and the said judgment passed in the case of petitioner has attained finality with the dismissal of special appeal, consequently when the petitioners namely Kapoor Chand and ors have been given the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- w.e.f 31.07.1996 there cannot be any discrimination with the petitioner so as to give him the benefit w.e.f the date of the judgment i.e 04.08.2011. Thus, it is claimed that the petitioner would be entitled for being given the benefit of the said judgment and nomenclature of Machine Assistant (Off Set) with pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- w.e.f 31.07.1996 with all attendant benefits.

10. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit argues that there is clear cut difference between the case of Kapoor Chand and ors (supra) and the case of petitioner inasmuch as the petitioners of Kapoor Chand (supra) were appointed as Machine Assistant (Off Set) since the very beginning while the petitioner herein has been appointed as Machine Assistant (Letter Press). The details thereof have been given in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit. It is thus contended that once there was a difference between the two set of employees i.e the employees in the case of Kapoor Chand (supra) and in the instant petition, as such the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- with the designation of Machine Assistant (Off Set) has been given to the petitioner w.e.f the date of judgment of the writ Court and the petitioner would not be entitled for any benefit from an earlier time.

11. Heard learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and perused the records.

12. From a perusal of records it comes out that a set of employees namely Kapoor Chand and ors (supra) had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2790 (SS) of 1998. The writ Court vide judgment and order dated 21.03.2005 had held the set of petitioners as entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/-. The special appeal and special leave to petition filed against the said judgment has been dismissed meaning thereby the judgment and order dated 21.03.2005 attained finality. Subsequent thereto, the respondents proceeded to comply with the judgment and order dated 21.03.2005 in the case of Kapoor Chand and Ors (supra) by giving the benefit said judgment and by granting them the designation of Machine Assistant (Off Set) in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- w.e.f 31.07.1996 with attendant benefits.

13. The petitioner herein had also filed a Writ Petition No. 4956 (SS) of 2004 and the writ Court vide judgment and order dated 04.08.2011 had extended the benefits of the judgment and order dated 31.03.2005 passed in the case of Kapoor Chand (supra) to the petitioner also. The special leave to appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed on 25.01.2012 meaning thereby that the judgment dated 04.08.2011 attained finality. Subsequent thereto, the respondents have proceeded to pass the impugned orders dated 09.07.2012 and 16.07.2012 in compliance to the judgment and order dated 04.08.2011. However, the benefit as admissible to the petitioner has only been given to him w.e.f the date of judgment i.e 04.08.2011. Once the writ Court vide judgment and order dated 04.08.2011 had extended the benefit of the judgment of Kapoor Chand (supra) and the set of petitioners in the case of Kapoor Chand (supra) have been given the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- w.e.f 31.07.1996 consequently, there cannot be any occasion of the respondents to restrict the grant of the said benefits to the petitioner w.e.f the date of the judgment in their case i.e 04.08.2011, more particularly, when the judgment and order dated 04.08.2011 has already been affirmed with the dismissal of the special appeal. Thus, there appears to be discrimination so far as the petitioner is concerned.

14. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the orders dated 09.07.2012 and 16.07.2012 so far as they extend the benefit of the judgment of the writ Court dated 04.08.2011 to the petitioner w.e.f 04.08.2011. A writ of Mandamus is issued directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for extension of the benefit at par with the petitioners of Kapoor Chand (supra) in the light of the order dated 27.01.2012, a copy of which is annexure 8 to the petitioner as extended to the petitioners of Kapoor Chand (supra).

15. Let such a consideration be done within a period of three months from the date of communication of certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 2.8.2021

Pachhere/-

(Abdul Moin,J)